Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

A country isn't run on "probably"
Again, a country is not run on "generally"

nice quoting:rolleyes:

A country should be run by managing situations and meeting the needs of the public. If the needs of the public are that a Sikh is given a job as a Gard, then the government should meet that need.

If the needs of the public are that a Jedi is given a role, then they should meet his needs. I don't know much about the Jedi religion, but I can't recall any form of dress that would impact on the Garda uniform.

Fratton Fred

bill_ashmount wrote:

Are you for real? Have you even read the thread?
European Court of human rights :rolleyes:

You clearly haven't read any of my posts.:rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Exactly

Will someone, Jakkass or Fratton please answer this question properly, because I'm getting rather sick of this endless round-about nonsense.

It is ridiculous to say that we should give the Sikhs this alteration and then probably, generally, no one will ever want the same thing.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

A country should be run by managing situations and meeting the needs of the public.

That is exactly what the gardai are doing. The public is greater than the Sikh community.

Fratton Fred wrote:

If the needs of the public are that a Sikh is given a job as a Gard, then the government should meet that need.

The Gardai are not stopping Sikhs from joining the force.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I don't know much about the Jedi religion, but I can't recall any form of dress that would impact on the Garda uniform.

The Jedi robe is a full length brown and white robe



I'm sure you can stick the Gardai logo some where in there under the front bit :rolleyes:

lennox1

It was reported that the spokesman for the Sikh police in Britain said the issue was so important to Sikhs because when a Sikh puts on a police uniform in the morning,he is a Sikh first,a policeman second.That,to me,is worrying as we could face a situation where religious grounds could be claimed for not dealing with certain individuals or situations.
The religious views and signs of Gardai should not be on show.

Fratton Fred

lennox1 wrote:

It was reported that the spokesman for the Sikh police in Britain said the issue was so important to Sikhs because when a Sikh puts on a police uniform in the morning,he is a Sikh first,a policeman second.That,to me,is worrying as we could face a situation where religious grounds could be claimed for not dealing with certain individuals or situations.
The religious views and signs of Gardai should not be on show.

are our current Gardai Catholic first or Gards first? Can you answer that for certain?

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

That is exactly what the gardai are doing. The public is greater than the Sikh community.


The Gardai are not stopping Sikhs from joining the force.




The Jedi robe is a full length brown and white robe



I'm sure you can stick the Gardai logo some where in there under the front bit :rolleyes:

is that the unform all members must wear or only the priests? I mean, I know a lot of Catholics and none of them dress like the Pope:p

Ekancone

lennox1 wrote:

It was reported that the spokesman for the Sikh police in Britain said the issue was so important to Sikhs because when a Sikh puts on a police uniform in the morning,he is a Sikh first,a policeman second.That,to me,is worrying as we could face a situation where religious grounds could be claimed for not dealing with certain individuals or situations.
The religious views and signs of Gardai should not be on show.

That's awful, how the **** have we regressed to a situation where we are even considering this?

Ekancone

Fratton Fred wrote:

is that the unform all members must wear or only the priests? I mean, I know a lot of Catholics and none of them dress like the Pope:p

Well its all based on private belief isnt it? Why not the pope uniform? What if the person believes strongly in it? What if he is the pope? Im being deadly serious.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

are our current Gardai Catholic first or Gards first? Can you answer that for certain?

He should be. If he wasn't we would be equally worried.

That was one of the reasons the special relationship was removed from the Constitution, because people, particularly in the North, feared that the State was Catholic first, and obviously if you aren't Catholic that is not a good thing for the State to be.

Article 3 of the Garda ethicial standard, which Guards have to sign as far as I know, states

"Respect and support the diversity and equality of cultures and beliefs in our society."

That is all cultures and all beliefs. The Garda, while acting as a Guard, should express no preference or support for one particular belief over another. He is acting as a representative of the State, not as a representative of his personal religion, and his responsibility is to the State not his religion.

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

Exactly

Will someone, Jakkass or Fratton please answer this question properly, because I'm getting rather sick of this endless round-about nonsense.

It is ridiculous to say that we should give the Sikhs this alteration and then probably, generally, no one will ever want the same thing.

It is a difficult because you keep giving hypothetical scenarios. There is no Jedi religion, no Rasta wants to smoke cannabis in public whilst on duty. It's all whatifery (I like that phrase).

Sikhs wanting to join the Gardai are a real and present scenario which needs addressing, playing the "It's our country and you abide by our rules" is, in my opinion, very short sighted.

The Irish public sometimes remind me of the inhabitants of the planet Krikkit and the reason why the krikkkit wars came about. (Suggest you read Hitchikers Guide for that one).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred

daithifleming wrote:

Well its all based on private belief isnt it? Why not the pope uniform? What if the person believes strongly in it? What if he is the pope? Im being deadly serious.

Because the Catholic faith does not require you to dress like the Pope.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

There is no Jedu religion, no Rast wants to smoke cannabis in public whilst on duty. It's all whatifery (I like that phrase).

That doesn't stop you answering the question. Which I notice you still haven't done.

These things normally are "whatifery" When the special relationship with the Catholic Church was removed from the Constitution it was because of "whatifery"

If people only made laws that applied to the current situation with no regard for the future the world would be an absolute mess.

It is typical of the Irish State to only plan in the hear and now (2 lane M50 anyone), and it is commendable that the Garda are actually thinking about the future repercussions of any potential change in uniform policy for accommodation of religious position.

As has been said many many times on this thread, this issue goes far beyond Sikhs and turbans. In fact it has very little to do with Sikhs, you could replace "Sikh" with any other religion and my argument remains the same.

You and Jakkass on the other hand seem happy enough to live simply in the here and now. Screw the future, someone else will figure that out.

Dave!

Fratton Fred wrote:

It is a difficult because you keep giving hypothetical scenarios. There is no Jedi religion, no Rasta wants to smoke cannabis in public whilst on duty. It's all whatifery (I like that phrase).

Sikhs wanting to join the Gardai are a real and present scenario which needs addressing, playing the "It's our country and you abide by our rules" is, in my opinion, very short sighted.

The Irish public sometimes remind me of the inhabitants of the planet Cricket and the reason why the Cricket wars came about. (Suggest you read Hitchikers Guide for that one).

Look you're either avoiding the point or else being extremely short-sighted.

You want to change the uniform because Sikhs are a real and present scenario. There will be other real and present scenarios in THE FUTURE.

If you change the uniform for the Sikhs, then you HAVE TO change the uniform for whomever decides that the regulation one doesn't suit them, in the future. If you do not, then you are discriminating.

Do you not see that?

You can say that we're just dealing with hypotheticals -- and that's because we need to, to ensure we don't discriminate in the future! You have to think outside the box that is "today" to protect everyone born tomorrow, from discrimination.

Take this hypothetical, if you may. I do not subscribe to an organised religion. I have personal beliefs that require me to wear a Jedi uniform at all times (except when it's being washed). Should I be allowed to wear it instead of my Garda uniform?

Fratton Fred

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If that is what is required, then yes. But it won't come to that will it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

Because the Catholic faith does not require you to dress like the Pope.

Says who?

I'm pretty sure I can find someone who believes it does. As soon as you tell them that their personal beliefs are wrong you are imposing a State definition of what they should believe in upon them and ignoring what they actually do believe. As dave says what if tomorrow Catholics where told by the Pope that they have to wear a certain item. Or what if this happened in 50 years time?

The State has no right to tell people what they should or should not believe. If someone believes that God himself has commanded them to dress up like the Pope the state has no right to tell them that they are mistaken.

Its all very well to say that in your opinion Religion X doesn't require this or that, but it isn't up to you to dictate what a person should or should not believe.

I could say to the Sikhs "Don't be silly you don't need to wear a Turban", and they will quite correctly tell me that the decision on what they are or are not required to wear isn't up to me, it is up to them.

So bearing that in mind, we ask again -

Are you prepared for the Garda to accommodate an infinite number of possible alterations to the Garda uniform based on personal beliefs of those wishing to join the force?

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

That doesn't stop you answering the question. Which I notice you still haven't done.

These things normally are "whatifery" When the special relationship with the Catholic Church was removed from the Constitution it was because of "whatifery"

If people only made laws that applied to the current situation with no regard for the future the world would be an absolute mess.

It is typical of the Irish State to only plan in the hear and now (2 lane M50 anyone), and it is commendable that the Garda are actually thinking about the future repercussions of any potential change in uniform policy for accommodation of religious position.

As has been said many many times on this thread, this issue goes far beyond Sikhs and turbans. In fact it has very little to do with Sikhs, you could replace "Sikh" with any other religion and my argument remains the same.

You and Jakkass on the other hand seem happy enough to live simply in the here and now. Screw the future, someone else will figure that out.

You are a lot more generous to the government than I would be. I would say that the government is sweeping the issue under the mat and hoping it will go away. Adressing dfferent religions and cultures in the Gards is addressing the future, because the proportion of Muslims/Sikh/Jedis in this country is going to grow and the Gardai should reflect this.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

But it won't come to that will it.

Why not?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

You are a lot more generous to the government than I would be. I would say that the government is sweeping the issue under the mat and hoping it will go away.

No, caving in and ignoring principle and giving the Sikhs what they want with no regard for the future repercussions (heck, let the next government worry about that) would be sweeping the issue under the carpet and hoping it goes away.

Thankfully the government appear not to be doing that.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Adressing dfferent religions and cultures in the Gards is addressing the future, because the proportion of Muslims/Sikh/Jedis in this country is going to grow and the Gardai should reflect this.

The Garda have addressed the issue, they are required by their own ethical standards to treat all beliefs equally and to act in an impartial manner in accordance with the law of the land, regardless of their own personal beliefs on any particular matter. Which is another, yet separate, argument as to why they should not express their own personal beliefs. They aren't individuals they are representatives of the State. And the State is secular.

You clearly do not want all beliefs to be treated equally, you want the major religions to be treated with special privileges at the expense of minor or individual beliefs, which you appear not to recognize as having any importance or value.

I'm sorry but that is unacceptable to me and many others who hold freedom of belief to be a very important part of modern society.

Dave!

Would this be alright with you, Fred?



(god this thread is great for photoshopping ideas! )

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

You clearly do not want all beliefs to be treated equally, you want the major religions to be treated with special privileges at the expense of minor or individual beliefs, which you appear not to recognize as having any importance or value.

I'm sorry but that is unacceptable to me and many others who hold freedom of belief to be a very important part of modern society.

I haven't said that at all so please stop misquoting me.

Please tell me how a Sikh wearing a Turban as part of a Uniform goes against your "Freedom of Belief" (Something which I too believe in.)

Fratton Fred

DaveMcG wrote:

Would this be alright with you, Fred?



(god this thread is great for photoshopping ideas! )

Not my cup ot tea I must admit, but neither is a Turban:D

Dave!

Fratton Fred wrote:

Not my cup ot tea I must admit, but neither is a Turban:D

So you are willing to have the Gardaí walking around wearing Jedi robes, football jerseys, dresses -- anything they want?

Ciaran500

Fratton Fred wrote:

Not my cup ot tea I must admit, but neither is a Turban:D

So would you be ok with the Jedi Garda?

Fratton Fred

Ciaran500 wrote:

So would you be ok with the Jedi Garda?

if only we could get some Jedi Garda, might sort out this drug gang war:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

DaveMcG wrote:

So you are willing to have the Gardaí walking around wearing Jedi robes, football jerseys, dresses -- anything they want?

But Sikhs in the British, Canadian and New York police aren;t waling around in whatever they want, they adapt their Turbans to suit their uniform. If your Jedi was prepared to do that, say Jedi robes in Gard colours, then maybe it could work.

jimmychin

Wicknight wrote:

Actually "they" are insisting the uniform be changed, and they are calling the Gardai racist for not agreeing.

who are "they" ?

as far as i am aware the only person to have used the word "racist" is some dumbass from the london metpol.
and the irish police commisioner in defending his decision.

please dont taint all sikh's with your falsehoods - these kind of statements dont help.

this isnt a racism issue and i think both the irish and sikh communities should know that.

Dave!

Fratton Fred wrote:

But Sikhs in the British, Canadian and New York police aren;t waling around in whatever they want, they adapt their Turbans to suit their uniform. If your Jedi was prepared to do that, say Jedi robes in Gard colours, then maybe it could work.

Well his beliefs say that the robe has to be tan coloured :rolleyes: He cannot wear a different colour. Can you accomodate him? Seriously, do you draw a line ANYWHERE regarding the uniform, or can everybody in the world be accomodated in your multi-cultural hippy Garda force?

I can't believe you'd seriously allow Gardaí to walk around in Jedi uniforms rather than have a secular police force!!! Well at least you see your argument to the very end! lol.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

if only we could get some Jedi Garda, might sort out this drug gang war:rolleyes:

(Quoting myself, how sad)

Supposing Obi Wan wanted to join An Garda Siochana and was the only man who could sort out the feud in Limerick, positively changing the lives of hundreds of Limerick residents, would you stop him because he would/could not wear the Gardai uniform?

Sorry Sir, we don't allow robes with hoods in the Gardai, now if you wouldn't mind moving along a bit, there's a very well turned out young man straight out of school who has an armed man to deal with:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

Please tell me how a Sikh wearing a Turban as part of a Uniform goes against your "Freedom of Belief" (Something which I too believe in.)

Allowing some yet turning away others because their beliefs are not big enough or "international recognized" goes against freedom of belief.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

But Sikhs in the British, Canadian and New York police aren;t waling around in whatever they want, they adapt their Turbans to suit their uniform. If your Jedi was prepared to do that, say Jedi robes in Gard colours, then maybe it could work.

And what if they say no?

As I asked earlier what if a new age person wishes to join the Gardai and says that blue is a negative colour, she wants to wear red instead? On what grounds do you say "No you can't" if you have already allowed the Sikhs and the Jedi to significantly alter the uniform to their liking?

I mean seriously, how do you not get that this would be unworkable.

At this stage you seem to just be arguing for the sake of it. Do you honestly believe that this would be workable without discriminating against particular beliefs?

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

would you stop him because he would/could not wear the Gardai uniform?

Yes. You seem to be completely missing the point of having a secular State. It is not just for the hell of it, religious discrimination is a serious issue. :rolleyes:

The flip side of that question is of course - If a Sikh had the power to stop the drug crime in Limerick would he not to it because doing so he would have to remove his turban to do so?

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

Allowing some yet turning away others because their beliefs are not big enough or "international recognized" goes against freedom of belief.

Sure it does, but that's just being practical. There is no social system in practice in the world that can be described as a perfect system in offering complete freedom of belief. Look hard enough and you'll find such hindrances anywhere.
Sometimes, you have to hinder freedoms, sometimes you have to extend special conditions.
Anybody who thinks that any social system is operable where there are hard and fast rules without allowing for flexibility when taking into account the constituent peoples and communities of that social network, is being naive, or something worse.
The civil machinery of the state are in place to serve the people, not vice versa. Sikhs are a reasonably large community in this state, asking that they might be afforded flexibility isn't that big a deal.

Dave!

InFront, what you call practical I call discrimination. It's easy for you to call it a practical price for religious freedom because you are a Muslim. I wonder would you be so quick to condone discrimination if you were of a minor religious order who doesn't have the numbers behind it to lobby against this kind of thing.

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

At this stage you seem to just be arguing for the sake of it. Do you honestly believe that this would be workable without discriminating against particular beliefs?

This works ok in other countries, a simple blanket ban is not going to make this go away, because one day your Jedi will want to join and will raise the same issues. You can come up with all the "what if he wants pink", "what if she wants purple spots" objections you like, it won't make it go away.

But, as usual, the Irish government has opted for the head in the sand approach.

lennox1

Fratton Fred wrote:

are our current Gardai Catholic first or Gards first? Can you answer that for certain?

The Gardai I am acquainted with do not allow their religious beliefs colour the way they work.They take their oath very seriously.Once they don the uniform,they are Gardai who deal with all people and situations irrespective of religion and no one would know by their words or actions what religion,if any,they are.

Fratton Fred

lennox1 wrote:

The Gardai I am acquainted with do not allow their religious beliefs colour the way they work.They take their oath very seriously.Once they don the uniform,they are Gardai who deal with all people and situations irrespective of religion and no one would know by their words or actions what religion,if any,they are.

so you are saying Sikhs shouldn't be Gards full stop.

Sleepy

It's my religious belief that all Catholics, Muslims and anyone professing faith in a deity is a complete moron and it's a required part of my faith to wear a slogan on my clothing to that effect.

Can that be accomodated by a new garda uniform?

No? But my religion dictates that I have to wear that on my clothing. You're discriminating against me.

mickoneill30

jimmychin wrote:

who are "they" ?

as far as i am aware the only person to have used the word "racist" is some dumbass from the london metpol.
and the irish police commisioner in defending his decision.

It was the Metropolitan Police Sikh Association.
http://www.tyronetimes.co.uk/latest-irish-news?articleid=3135007

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Sure it does, but that's just being practical.

Being "practical" isn't an excuse for discrimination.

Imagine if a golf course said we don't have enough space for everyone so we are going to turn away the black people, its just practical.

People may very well ask "Why the black people?" and get a response along the lines of "Well few black people wish to join, who else would you pick?"

Discrimination is at the end of the day, discrimination. Everyone is happy with a golf course above that excludes black people except the black people. Everyone is happy with a Garda force that grants privileges to certain religions except those that don't get these privileges.

InFront wrote:

There is no social system in practice in the world that can be described as a perfect system in offering complete freedom of belief.

That isn't a reason to go out of our way to implement institutionalized discrimination.

As has been stated about 100 times already, the only fair way to handle this issue is to treat everyone equally and not allow anyone special privileges that others don't get.

InFront wrote:

Sometimes, you have to hinder freedoms, sometimes you have to extend special conditions.

You don't have to here. The advantages of having happy Sikhs in the Garda does not out way the fact that you would be discriminating against everyone else.

InFront wrote:

The civil machinery of the state are in place to serve the people, not vice versa.

And the people, as in ALL the people, are best served by keeping the State institutions secularized.

God I cannot believe it is still necessary to have this debate in 2007.

Fratton Fred

Sleepy wrote:

It's my religious belief that all Catholics, Muslims and anyone professing faith in a deity is a complete moron and it's a required part of my faith to wear a slogan on my clothing to that effect.

Can that be accomodated by a new garda uniform?

No? But my religion dictates that I have to wear that on my clothing. You're discriminating against me.

why would you want to join the Gardai if you think most of the country is a moron, would you not be better off living in a field somewhere?

Dave!

I presume you're being facetious there (as I'm sure was Sleepy).

But the serious point remains that you cannot allow every single belief to be accomodated, so where do you draw the line, and why? Why is one person's beliefs inferior to others'?

Fratton Fred

DaveMcG wrote:

I presume you're being facetious there (as I'm sure was Sleepy).

But the serious point remains that you cannot allow every single belief to be accomodated, so where do you draw the line, and why? Why is one person's beliefs inferior to others'?

well spotted

that is a question I cannot answer because there are so many permatations, but my opinion still stands that a blanket ban is not the way forward. Accomodating other faiths and cultures is a better approach than excluding hem.

Sleepy

Well Fratton Fred, if you can't offer a valid alternative you're not in a very strong position to question the only option that guarantees equality (aside from anarchy) are you?

lennox1

Fratton Fred wrote:

so you are saying Sikhs shouldn't be Gards full stop.

All people of all religions are welcome to join the Gardai as far as I am concerned but I do not want to know by the attire or the actions of the Garda what religious belief they hold.
I feel the Commissioner and the government should hold fast against the pressure and criticism and eventually everyone will realise that if you want to join the Gardai,no religious emblems are allowed.
I wonder that if this man is allowed to wear a turban,is it a short step to Gardai feeling they have the right to object to certain duties on religious grounds.For instance,Im sure if a Catholic /Muslim Garda said that he/she couldn't investigate a gay rape as homosexuality was against their religion,people would be up in arms and rightly so.
However there would be a level of support iin some quarters for that view and pressure would again be brought on the Commissioner to allow that change too,on religious grounds.Then where does it all end?

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

well spotted

that is a question I cannot answer because there are so many permatations, but my opinion still stands that a blanket ban is not the way forward. Accomodating other faiths and cultures is a better approach than excluding hem.

But that is ridiculous.

Of course it would be nice to accommodate everyone. No one is arguing against that. It has been said many times that the only two options are accommodate everyone or no one. The whole point is that accommodating everyone is simply not possible or practical.

If there is no way to accommodate everyone (there isn't) then the next logical step is to ask what is the fairest way to handle the issue.

It clearly isn't fair to accommodate some people and not others. You get into the very messy issue of how do you decide who to accommodate and who not to accommodate. What ever solution one comes up with, someone is going to be excluded

In a society that values equality and equal treatment of all beliefs, that is not a option. Not just for the idea of equality, but also from a practical position, that being that there is actually no way to rationally decide who should be included and who shouldn't. Is the belief that one should not cut their hair any more or less a good belief than any other belief?

So with that in mind one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only fair and just way to handle this is to not give any special accommodate to anyone, as that is the only way to treat all religions equally.

I mean this isn't rocket science. It is the only practical solution to the issue. Anything else leads down the road of discrimination. Attempting to argue that we won't go down that road very far is irrelevant, and impossible to know either way.